Tasteless Journalism

I've had my issues with the brain trust that runs the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle over the past years.  I've disagreed with them over endorsements.  I've disagreed with them when they've published uneducated opinions on issues they failed to adequately research.

However, I have never been more floored by their lack of judgment than I was today in reading the thoughtless, insensitive, and ill-timed editorial regarding the death of Harris County District Attorney Mike Anderson.  Today, on the day before Mike's funeral, the Chronicle's editorial board saw fit to write such things as:

"With his premature death from cancer at 57 last week, Anderson has been denied the opportunity of carrying out his tough, some would say harsh, prosecutorial agenda as head of the state's largest district attorney's office."

I understand if the Chronicle disagreed with some of the policies of the Anderson Administration, but is a critical editorial really appropriate in the same edition as the man's obituary?

To add insult to injury during this sad time, the editors also decided to criticize Mike and his family for not choosing to share every last detail of his illness with them:

"While respecting that he was diagnosed with an illness that turned out to be terminal, we cannot help but question how he reconciled his desire for privacy against the public's right to know about an official they elected . . . Weren't county voters entitled to know a little more about the DA's personal circumstances?  We think so."

Reading that last paragraph again is infuriating beyond words.

Mike made the announcement that he had cancer many months ago.  He continued to work to the best of his ability right up until the time he died.  He also had help running the Office in the extremely capable hands of First Assistant Belinda Hill.

What more do the morons at the Chronicle feel entitled to know?  Did they want to know how chemotherapy was going?  Did they want to know how he was coming to terms with his own mortality?  Did they want to know how his family was taking the news?

"We think so."

The arrogance of those three words is mind-numbing to me.  Regardless of whether or not Mike Anderson was an elected official, some things fall unquestionably under the category of privacy.  Terminal illness is probably at the top of that category, and the author's claim that voters were "entitled to know a little more" is just whining that the paper didn't get the intrusive story that it wanted.

The editorial did get one thing correct in encouraging Governor Rick Perry to appoint Belinda Hill as interim District Attorney, but they still managed to cheapen that endorsement by basing it on her race.

"We encourage Gov. Perry to appoint former Judge Hill, an African-American with a strong background in the criminal justice system.  Doing so would be a welcome acknowledgment of the need for diversity on the prosecution side in a system where so many defendants are persons of color."

So, at this point, this farewell to an elected official and long-time public servant has turned into an appeal for diversity, which manages to insult Belinda Hill in the process.

Belinda Hill should absolutely be appointed the interim District Attorney.  She should be appointed because she was a long-time prosecutor before becoming a highly respected judge who served on the 230th District Court for years.  She should be appointed because she has helped implement the policies of the Anderson Administration and kept the Office running in its time of crisis.  She should be appointed because she has the respect of the prosecutors she supervises and the equal respect of the Harris County Defense Bar.

In his short time in office, Mike Anderson pulled the Harris County District Attorney's Office out of a downward spiral that was destroying morale across the board.  He recruited then-Judge Hill to join him as his First Assistant, and I have no doubt that he had faith in her ability to lead the Office in his absence.

These are the things that "county voters are entitled to know" and these are the things that should be remembered as we prepare to say goodbye to Mike Anderson tomorrow.

The Chronicle Editorial Board should be ashamed of what it wrote in today's paper.

It is no wonder why no individual signed his or her name to it.

Mike Anderson's Obituary

In case you missed it, the Houston Chronicle has Harris County District Attorney Mike Anderson's obituary in it this morning.  You can read it here.

Please note that the funeral will be on Friday, September 6 at 2:00 p.m. at the First Presbyterian Church at 5300 Main in Downtown.  I know that many of us will be taking the Metrorail because parking will probably difficult.

Also please note that the Anderson family has requested that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to Big Brothers Big Sisters or the Harris County Drug Court Foundation.

Mike Anderson

As most of you in our courthouse community have probably heard by now, Harris County District Attorney Mike Anderson passed away overnight after a battle with cancer.  As someone who practiced in front of him, campaigned for him, admired him, and considered him a friend, I don't think I can adequately express how heartbroken I feel.

I know there are so many other attorneys and friends of Mike who knew him much longer and much better than I did, but I looked up to the man ever since I met him.  When you're a young baby prosecutor, it is very easy to be intimidated by judges, but Mike was always the friendly judge.  He conveyed to you that he was glad you were as interested in criminal law as he was, and his enthusiasm was contagious.  

Mike's enthusiasm was contagious because he was a born leader.  

I know that I have told the story here before about the first time I ever really had a conversation with Mike, but I'll tell it again.  We were attending the funeral of Harris County Sheriff homicide detective Jim Hoffman, and he drove me, Dan Rizzo, and John Jordan to the church for the service.  John and I were first time felony threes, I think, and we knew of Mike as not just a District Court judge, but a legendary former prosecutor.  We thought he was awesome.

Yet, Mike spent the drive telling us how we, the new generation of Assistant District Attorneys, were the awesome ones.  He talked about the camaraderie of the Office and how it was a proud tradition and he was so glad there were still those who wanted to carry on the torch.  To have been that young in our careers and to hear that from somebody we admired so much was so meaningful that I remember every word ten years later.

He loved working in the Criminal Justice System and he very much reminded me an old school Texas Lawman.  Before he shaved off his moustache, he actually always reminded me of Sam Elliott.  Prosecutors loved having cases in his court.  Defense attorneys . . . well, maybe not so much.  Mike definitely had a reputation for being tough on crime, which unfortunately overshadowed the work he did on Drug Court and other rehabilitative efforts.  

After the 2008 election, as the morale in the District Attorney's Office plummeted, he was approached by many, many people (myself included) who begged him to run for District Attorney.  He had announced that he wasn't running for re-election in 2010, and that only intensified the speculation that he might do so.

When I first approached him, he didn't seem to think he was going to be running for office again.  He had his retirement planned out and was looking forward to it.

But, I could tell he was struggling with the decision.

As time went by and things got worse at the D.A.'s Office, he ultimately changed his mind.  I highly doubt that any one person convinced him to run.  I think it was his love of the Office.   As I get older, the idea of a peaceful retirement off in the country somewhere sounds more and more attractive.  The thing that I think so many people fail to realize about the 2012 election was that Mike had that retirement in his hand when he decided to run for District Attorney.

The job of Harris County District Attorney needed Mike Anderson much much more than Mike Anderson needed the job of Harris County District Attorney.

But when duty calls, true leaders rise to the occasion.  Despite the fact that he had a well-deserved retirement in his clutches, Mike returned back to public service.  I don't know how many others would have done the same.  The world of politics in the Harris County arena is nasty and brutal.  Some of his political enemies have (tastelessly) wondered aloud if Mike knew he had cancer when he was running. 

I don't know if he did or didn't, but if he did and kept running, that makes him even more heroic in my book.  People going through cancer treatment usually don't have the energy to get out of bed in the morning, let alone make five campaign appearances a day.  Mike knew that Office needed him and he did everything in his power to live up to the expectations of those who asked him to run -- even at the expense of his own health.

Mike did accomplish what he set out to do and that was evident at his swearing-in ceremony on January 1st this year.  The Office may still be far from perfect, but that morning it was very evident that the enthusiasm was back.  Mike's inaugural speech reminded me so much of that conversation we had ten years earlier.  The prosecutors there were so pumped about their jobs again.  Even though I wasn't one of them, seeing their enthusiasm did my heart good.  To witness true leadership in action is an inspiring thing.

I last talked to Mike about two weeks ago.  He called me about my blog post on the overcrowding in the CJC mornings and said he was committed to doing something about it.  He said he agreed it wasn't fair for people to have their bonds forfeited when it wasn't their fault they couldn't get to the courtroom in time. He told me he wanted to work with the defense bar on finding solutions. Mike was definitely still "on the job" and he sounded great.  During our conversation, I mentioned to him that I was going through some medical issues at the moment.  In typical Mike fashion, he wanted to know what he could do for me.

I am so very glad that I was able to have that last conversation with him.

The loss of Mike Anderson the leader and District Attorney is a tragedy.  The loss of Mike Anderson the husband and father is heartbreaking.

Mike had the all-American family and the love he had for Devon was so evident and inspiring.  He never missed an opportunity to talk about how lucky he was to have her and how in love he was.  It was only rivaled by the love and pride he had in his children.  Nothing makes me sadder than to think of all his family is going through during this horrible time.  My heart goes out to them all.

My condolences go out to his family at the D.A.'s Office as well.  He was so proud to lead that Office and he was made proud by you all.  

I am proud just to have called Mike Anderson my friend.

Mike Anderson's Announcement

I'm sure by now that you have learned that Harris County District Attorney Mike Anderson announced today that he is battling cancer.

I don't know any more than what is being reported in the newspaper or television.  No specifics have been released.

My thoughts and prayers are with Mike, Devon and their family.

We are all praying for you and wish you a speedy recovery.

The Bunker Mentality

As you may or may not be aware by now, the mandatory ethics training hosted by the Harris County District Attorney's Office on January 31st has recently come under attack by political pundit and die-hard Pat Lykos fan, David "Big Jolly" Jennings.   Big Jolly says:

"Immediately after the conclusion of newly elected Harris County District Attorney Mike Anderson's first training session for Assistant District Attorneys several [emphasis added] people that were appalled by the "training" asked me to look into it."

Gee, I wonder who those "several" people were.

Now (after I get this image of "Super Jolly to the rescue!" out of my head) let me point out a couple of things that I think are relevant before we break down his interpretation.

First off, David Jennings isn't a lawyer.  I'm not saying that makes him less intelligent -- Dave is very intelligent -- however, he often misses finer points of law.  At the early part of last year, I spent an hour trying to explain to him what the legal problem was with the DIVERT program, and the information just wasn't taking.  His allegiance to his particular candidate caused him to shrug off the law I was trying to explain to him.

Second, from the Missing the Forest for the Trees Department, did we forget the point that the new administration, in the first month of their regime, held a mandatory training session on Ethics?  If I recall correctly, the first mandatory training hosted by the previous administration was given by a paid speaker who talked about how the primary job of an Assistant District Attorney was to make their boss "look good."

Don't even say it, Rage.  I'll move along.

Big Jolly posted his article last Wednesday, and felt so strongly about it that he felt the need to do a follow up post on Friday where he cherry picked his favorite snippets of dialog from the lecture.  To be fair, he acknowledges his own bias in both posts.  In the meantime, the article picked up some traction and has been addressed by Scott Henson's Grits for Breakfast and Paul Kennedy's The Defense Rests (where in typical non-inflammatory Kennedy style, he refers to the D.A.'s Office as "a cult.")

I haven't posted on it before today because I thought I would actually take the time to watch the entirety of the video before commenting.  I know Big Jolly watched it all.  At the time of writing his article, Grits acknowledges that he had not watched it all.  Paul doesn't say whether or not he watched it all.  It is lengthy -- about 1 hour and 40 minutes.

My take on it is kind of tepid.  It certainly isn't the most awesome Continuing Legal Education seminar that I've ever watched.  I think that it could have used a lot more specific examples of what is Brady (exculpatory evidence, for you non-lawyers) material and a stronger emphasis on the fact that the duty to disclose Brady material extends to collecting it from police officers.

However, I don't think it resonates with the "cult-like" "bunker mentality" that Big Jolly is hoping it is portrayed to be.  I'm not going to go into as much depth on the class as Big Jolly does in his pieces, but I encourage you to watch the video yourself if you've got the time to kill.

In the end, I think the biggest problem with the seminar was that the wind up lasted about ten times longer than the pitch did.  Rob Kepple, Mike Anderson, and Johnny Holmes spent more time talking about how the "day and age" had changed more so than they did explaining how to adapt to it.

Anderson introduces the program, and points out the fact that the Innocence Project thinks of prosecutors as something "less than pond scum."  I suppose that is inflammatory, although I didn't think it was designed to rile up the audience of prosecutors against the Innocence Project.  I thought it was more a word of caution that prosecutors (and how they handle their cases) are under the microscope.  The message was very clear:  if a prosecutor thinks they are going to get away with fudging on facts because they operate under the delusion that everyone considers them the guys in the "White Hats," that belief is mistaken.

I can understand the interpretation that it may cause an "us vs. them" mentality, but hasn't the Defense Bar always wanted the prosecution to know that they are being watched when it comes to their ethics?

Mr. Holmes' appearance at the class was clearly an effort to get prosecutors fired up about doing their jobs, again.  He was the cheerleading opening act to Kepple's speech.  If some would take offense to the idea of getting the ADAs excited about prosecuting, there isn't much I could say to rebut their feelings.  He tells a story about trying a case against defense attorney Mike Ramsey, where Ramsey acknowledged that he was arguing some flimsy material.  His point is that prosecutors don't get to argue flimsy evidence when defense attorneys can.

The keynote speaker of the engagement was TDCAA's Rob Kepple.  I know Rob, but I've only met him on a couple of occasions.  Did I think his speech could have been better?  Yes.  Do I think it was as evil and conspiratorial as others have made it out to be?  Um, no.  Not even close.

Kepple begins by saying that times have changed and that the public doesn't have that blind love of prosecutors and law enforcement that they did back in the 1980s.  Is he lamenting?  I don't know.  Probably.  Who cares?  He then cites reasons that there may have been a change in attitudes from then to now.

He talks about how prisons were built and people got locked up.  People began to feel safer.  Fighting crime was no longer a priority in their minds.  He does cite the fact that formerly supportive business groups now regard the District Attorneys' Offices across the State as just another part of "big government" and aren't as supportive as they used to be.  Again, is he "lamenting"?  Who cares?

He cites the Pedro Oregon case, but he isn't applauding anyone.  He is simply pointing out that prosecutors have to make decisions that are often wildly unpopular in the public.

But after this is where Kepple's speech gets really misconstrued by Big Jolly.  Kepple readily acknowledges that prosecutors have not helped their own public perception by the way they've reacted to change.  He cites Mike Nifong and "Nifong Charlie" Sebesta for their over-aggressive and unethical prosecutions.  He talks about the Michael Morton case and Ken Anderson and John Bradley.  He acknowledges that John Bradley was his friend, but points out that Bradley's antics cost him his job in the primary in an extremely pro-prosecution county.

Does he call Michael Morton "lucky" because he got retesting done which ultimately freed him?  Yes, he absolutely does, but he doesn't do it with sarcasm.  He points out that many prosecutors have been opposing retesting of DNA and that fortunately Morton got his done and was exonerated.  He wasn't belittling that by any stretch of the imagination.  He stated that his hope is that Mr. Morton will come speak to TDCAA in the future about what happens when exculpatory material is withheld.

He does talk about how in sports, incidents of cheating are often forgiving, but his point is to show that this type of mentality does not work in prosecutions.  Prosecutors have a higher standard.  There should be no fudging.  There should be no cheating.  The example he gives of Billy Jack is of the prosecutor who wins their case with the material they are given and don't have to do anything sneaky to succeed.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see Kepple telling any of the prosecutors anything other than to do their jobs fairly and to be proud of the work they did.  He told them people are watching the job they are doing so they better do it right and they had better do it ethically.

Isn't that kind of what the Defense Bar has been wanting them to do since, I don't know, the beginning of the Legal System?

As for the "Bunker Mentality" and thinking that other people are out to get them, one of the comments on Grits' post may have provided some insight into why prosecutors feel that way.  An anonymous poster wrote the following information, referencing the murder of Kaufman County prosecutor, Mark Hasse:

That was over 48 hours ago, and (as of this writing) there hasn't been one single comment even arguing with that poster's logic.

To me, that's a hell of a lot more offensive than anything said during the Ethics Training Seminar.